common sense from the media... refreshing...

So you're saying that if you take a large number, like 1 million, and you dividie it by a three digit number, you end up with a number that is substnatilly smaller than 1 million. No, sir. I don't believe it.

You shouldn't talk to people like that. Darla gets mad.

The point dung is that you use the total number because you know the stupid people like Desh are easily impressed by large numbers. In reality, it was a stupid attempt at a point on your part.
 
I never suggested otherwise. I'm just telling you which way it went this time and why the Republican control of the House doesn't rest on a mandate of support for Republican policies.

How about you tell us who stated Rep control of the House gave a mandate of support for Rep policies?
 
Riiiugggghhhhhtttttt. And dems weren't filibustering judicial nominations.

Look. I am going to stop here because I run te risk of poking a hole in your carefully crafted reality and I don't think you could handle it


LOL. You're the one that brought up Social Security, not me. The House Republicans didn't even hold a vote on a bill (to the extent one actually existed). That had nothing to do with the Democrats doing anything "unprecedented" and had everything to do with no one liking what Bush wanted to do.

Also, too, the filibuster of judicial nominations was not new. See Paez, Richard.
 
So, winning the presidency by 4.5 million votes is the same thing as losing the House vote by 1.2 million votes? OK.
You're good at math.

Dear straw man maker... where did he say the numbers were the same thing? He stated that the margin of victory doesn't give either party a mandate. Then you try and pretend he said that 4.5 million is the same as 1.2 million?

You're an idiot.
 
Dear straw man maker... where did he say the numbers were the same thing? He stated that the margin of victory doesn't give either party a mandate. Then you try and pretend he said that 4.5 million is the same as 1.2 million?

You're an idiot.


Uh, he made the comparison in the first instance. Not me.

So, like, fuck yourself with mashed potatoes, hot shot.
 
Uh, he made the comparison in the first instance. Not me.

So, like, fuck yourself with mashed potatoes, hot shot.

He did not make the comparison in the manner you projected. He did not state that 4.5 million is the same as 1.2 million. You created that little straw man all on your own. Hot shot.
 
He did not make the comparison in the manner you projected. He did not state that 4.5 million is the same as 1.2 million. You created that little straw man all on your own. Hot shot.

LOL. He implied that what flows from winning by 4.5 million is no different from losing by 1.5 million. If you want to pretend that I created a strawman by drawing th e reasonable inferences from his posts, enjoy.
 
LOL. He implied that what flows from winning by 4.5 million is no different from losing by 1.5 million. If you want to pretend that I created a strawman by drawing th e reasonable inferences from his posts, enjoy.

He was talking about the margin of victory being narrow in both cases. You tried to turn that into 'u don't know that 4.5 million is different than 1.5 million, ur math sucks'

A complete strawman; there was nothing reasonable about your inferences
 
He was talking about the margin of victory being narrow in both cases. You tried to turn that into 'u don't know that 4.5 million is different than 1.5 million, ur math sucks'

A complete strawman; there was nothing reasonable about your inferences


No, he said that the margin of victory was narrow in both cases and that the conclusion to be drawn from a 4.5 million vote margin of victory for the President and a -1.2 million vote margin of "victory" for the House Republicans is "that there isn't great support for either party or its policies and it's pretty damn foolish to think otherwise."

I disagreed and with a healthy dose of sarcasm.
 
No, he said that the margin of victory was narrow in both cases and that the conclusion to be drawn from a 4.5 million vote margin of victory for the President and a -1.2 million vote margin of "victory" for the House Republicans is "that there isn't great support for either party or its policies and it's pretty damn foolish to think otherwise."

I disagreed and with a healthy dose of sarcasm.

Well neither does a presidency that won by about 3%. That would mean that there isn't great support for either party or its policies and it's pretty damn foolish to think otherwise.

So, winning the presidency by 4.5 million votes is the same thing as losing the House vote by 1.2 million votes? OK.




You're good at math.

When the pool is out of over 100,000,000, it's pretty slim margins all around.

Yeah, and I'm not good at math, but my sense is that being on the winning end by 4.5 million is a bigger margin than being on the losing end by 1.2 million. But, yeah, I guess we can call it even.

whatever dung... we can all read what was written.
 
White House Report Claims Sequestration Will Affect Federal Department That No Longer Exists

http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/25/white-house-report-claims-sequestration


If you want a thorough agency-by-agency rundown of the budget cuts sequestration would deliver, the Office of Management and Budget has you covered. In compliance with The Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012, the OMB sent a detailed report to Congress in September 2012. But there's a small problem with the report: One of the cuts it warns against would affect an agency that no longer exists--and didn't exist when the OMB sent its report to congress.


The first line item on page 121 of the OMB's September 2012 report says that under sequestration the National Drug Intelligence Center would lose $2 million of its $20 million budget. While that's slightly more than 8.2 percent (rounding error or scare tactic?), the bigger problem is that the National Drug Intelligence Center shuttered its doors on June 15, 2012--three months before the OMB issued its report to Congress.
 
White House Report Claims Sequestration Will Affect Federal Department That No Longer Exists

http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/25/white-house-report-claims-sequestration


If you want a thorough agency-by-agency rundown of the budget cuts sequestration would deliver, the Office of Management and Budget has you covered. In compliance with The Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012, the OMB sent a detailed report to Congress in September 2012. But there's a small problem with the report: One of the cuts it warns against would affect an agency that no longer exists--and didn't exist when the OMB sent its report to congress.


The first line item on page 121 of the OMB's September 2012 report says that under sequestration the National Drug Intelligence Center would lose $2 million of its $20 million budget. While that's slightly more than 8.2 percent (rounding error or scare tactic?), the bigger problem is that the National Drug Intelligence Center shuttered its doors on June 15, 2012--three months before the OMB issued its report to Congress.

LOL...
 
all the republicans have to do to fix this is submitt a bill to null and void the sequester cuts.


Why would they do that.....this is what Obama wanted, sequester is his brainstorm, he wanted it and said he would VETO any
bill to stop it.....even I'm beginning to like it......

By the way, whats wrong with Democrats submitting a bill to null and void the sequester cuts ?
 
Back
Top